State of Tennessee v. Carolyn Strickland ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998 December 8, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709-CR-00419
)
Appellee, )
) JACKSON COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON. J.O. BOND, JUDGE
CAROLYN STRICKLAND, )
)
Appe llant. ) (POST-CONVICTION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
COMER L. DONNELL JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
HOWARD L. CHAMBERS TIMO THY F . BEHAN
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
213 North Cumberland Street 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
P.O. Box 888 425 Fifth Avenue North
Lebanon, TN 37087 Nashville, TN 37243
TOM P. THO MPS ON, JR .
District Attorney General
JOHN D. WOOTTEN, JR.
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 178
Hartsville, TN 37074
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Petition er, Ca rolyn S tricklan d, app eals the order of the Jackson Coun ty
Criminal Court dis missing her petition for post-co nviction relief. In her sole issue on
appe al, Petitioner argues she was incompetent to stand trial due to the medication
she wa s taking d uring the trial and wa s, therefore , denied h er right to due process
and a fair trial.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and received a sentence of
life impris onm ent in th e Jac kson Coun ty Crim inal Co urt. Th e con viction was
affirmed on app eal. State v. Carolyn Strickland, No. 01C01-9212-CR-00390,
Jackson County (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, March 23, 1995), perm. to appeal
denied, (Tenn. 1995). Following the denial of her permission to appeal, she filed a
petition for post-conviction relief. In post-conviction proce edings, the pe titioner bears
the burden of proving the allegations raised in the petition by clear and convincing
evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). Moreover, the trial court’s findings of
fact are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against the
judgm ent. Tidwe ll v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn . 1996); Cam pbell v. State ,
904 S.W.2d 594, 59 6 (Ten n. 1995 ); Coop er v. State , 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn.
1993). As the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court,
we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.
At the post-conviction hearing, Petitioner testified that she was taking various
medicines, including pain, nerve and sleep aid medications. She described that due
to the effect of her medications, she was in cohe rent an d una ble to recall any aspect
of her trial. Both Petitioner’s broth er and sister testified that the y observe d the
-2-
Petitioner taking various medications during the week and that she was so affected
by the med ications that she w as not acting no rmally.
Petition er’s trial counsel both testified that while Petitioner indicated that she
may have taken various medication during the course of the trial, they did not
perso nally witness her taking any medication during that week. The attorneys
described that Petitioner spoke clearly, never slurring her words, and was able to
comm unicate effectively with them. In response to their questioning, she was always
responsive. Petitioner never indicated in any way that she was not understanding
what they were saying. W hile coun sel did no tice that Pe titioner was “stressed out”
during the course of the trial, it was not to a n exten t that wa s abn orma l.
Furthermore, couns el stated th at if Petitioner had ever indicated any
incomprehension regarding the trial procee dings or a ppeare d to be incoherent due
to the medication, this would have immediately been brought to the attention of the
trial court.
The trial court found that the credibility of the witnesses for the Defendant was
not good, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence she was taking so
much medication that she could not help her attorneys in her defense. The trial
court noted tha t her attorneys talked with her, worked with her directly and did not
see anything that would indicate she was incompetent. Based on these facts, we
conclude that Petitioner has not carried her burde n that s he wa s den ied a fa ir trial.
Petitioner has mad e no show ing that the post-co nviction court’s findings a re
inconsistent with the evidence.
-3-
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for post-
conviction relief.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WA DE, Presiding Judge
___________________________________
JAMES CURW OOD W ITT, JR., Judge
-4-